Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 9, 2012 11:30am-12:00pm PDT

11:30 am
this is the enterprise apprenticeships opportunities. this is part of the sale legislation. we think that this project would be coming up with that plan. this is the covenant, covering four large parcels in the area. this is absolutely imperative that they deal with the policies established by the board of supervisors. part of this is who we are dealing with. i want to let the commission know that in march of 2011, we passed the resolution asking for them to make certain that they
11:31 am
uphold the standards. and these developers on their nose at the board. this is a subcontractor that we have come across. this is part of the project. this is part of the dry wall. this is the company that has been fined for significant wage and hour violations. this is the sacramento area. i hope that you verify. before you let this move forward, but for the developer -- they can do this right.
11:32 am
they're making sure that they do this right. >> i am part of the environmental justice nonprofit based in san francisco. with the san francisco local hiring policy for construction. local 22, the carpenters, develop the economic justice development company as described. these standards -- they are enforced on one of the largest parcels of development and octavia corridor.
11:33 am
this is the cabinet -- and the past history with avalon bay has said that the verbal guarantee is not good enough. and a conditional use permit, there is the written guarantee between the community and labor. until there is the compliance plan, we are going to see a representative -- a repetition of what happened, at ocean avenue, leading to the board of supervisors having the labor practices, and with the board of supervisors -- these are important issues to work out. we would ask that this be continued until the good work force development can be insured on this project.
11:34 am
>> good afternoon. i am danny campbell. we are here because we believe this kind of project is vitally important. and each project must be judged on the package of its benefits. we appreciate that they use the achievement workers on this project, and this is largely the result of the economic justice and community covenant -- with the prevailing wages, and there in the state approved a program that would give them real
11:35 am
middle-class jobs. and a career in the trades. we share these concerns, that they have been put forward -- and you know that they have had significant problems out of the ocean avenue project, where the out of city construction workers were employed and played wages -- paid wages, and the first source higher policy calls that a plan be submitted to the city, but how many and what type of new hires will be placed on the project. considering avon bay's part in this project -- this should be reviewed and we currently have
11:36 am
over 50 san francisco residents, with some tough neighborhoods. they need to work on this project. over the next three years, you will vote on projects just like this for dozens of construction and it -- construction hours, and only with the right kind of public policy and leadership will those projects make the difference for hundreds of families in the city. they can result in higher profits, and they can reinforce the compact between the train workers and the finance developers. they are committed to working through the board, with the other city leaders to create the work force housing -- for the economic position. thank you very much.
11:37 am
>> and is there any additional public comment? the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini: my first question is for the staff, dealing with parking. with market octavia, with the testimony and the language it was stated that the sponsors could have 35 more offsite. and we wonder which is the case here. >> according to the planning code we could have 147 residential of speed spaces, and
11:38 am
so this is within the amount that they can request. >> maybe because they're not all under the same parts of the market -- there is a higher allowance. with the market octavia. >> in this case -- this is split. this is the maximum cap. you cannot go over. they are complying because there underneath the maximum cap. >> i have concerns about the parking demand, and it would seem as though we would go with a higher amount of on-site parking, and have a larger number of the car share spots,
11:39 am
that is something i would like to talk about later. >> this is something that the division, setting a maximum cap that could not be exceeded. commissioner antonini: i would speak to crafting something that used those additional places in a creative way. realistically, a high percentage of people who rent and own will have cars. i have some other questions. we can deal with that a little bit later. this might be for you or it might be for the city attorney. we have heard some talks about the project sponsor's talked about labor issues. representatives of labor talked about the same things.
11:40 am
apparently, there are some requirements that were part of this. i am wondering -- it seems as though they are obliged to satisfy these requirements. i am not quite sure what the differences between the two. >> they are obliged to follow requirements. your draft motion on page 38 says it shall adhere to the construction hiring -- i do not think that is required at this point. we will work with the project sponsor and develop that plan should you choose to approve the project. commissioner antonini: we may not be able to condition that, but it seems if it is already in there. there was also talk about apprenticeship training and local hire and a few other
11:41 am
things. >> there are some folks from the mayor's office. commissioner antonini: that would be good to hear. if there is a difference or if there is not a difference. >> as you heard mentioned previously, in 2009, the board of supervisors approved an ordinance which authorized the sale of all of the remaining parcels. that ordinance stipulated that any market great sale, the buyer would need to enter into an declaration of economic justice covenant. the purchase and sale agreement for parcel p does include this economic justice covenant. it is a requirement that upon closer -- closing is economic
11:42 am
justice covenant will be eight recorded document along with the deed -- will be a recorded document along with the deed. this economic justice covenant does require that for residential projects of above 60 units, prevailing wages be paid, as well as compliance with a first source. in addition to apprenticeship standards. those are included in the covenant. it has not yet been recorded, but must be recorded in order to close this deal. commissioner antonini: because it is in the language and it is a condition, are approval would make it necessary that these be done. it seems like these concerns would be addressed when the final sale is approved. >> right. i am relying on that 2009 ordinance passed by the board of supervisors. it included the template
11:43 am
language for this economic justice covenant. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> even though -- are condition only reference is a first source hiring. it does not reference what we were just talking about. i have a question to the city attorney about whether we can include a condition to reference the covenant. >> commissioners, deputy city attorney. there are two different issues. one is the city acting in its proprietary capacity, entering into the purchase and sale agreement. that is what the ebb -- as a condition of the purchase and
11:44 am
sale agreement, the economic justice covenants or a condition of that sale. -- are a condition of that sale. in your motion, there is a standard condition related to first source hiring. that is what will be a condition of your approval. you are acting in the city's regulatory capacity. as you are aware, the national labor relations act constrains the city's ability to effect labor relations acting towards regulatory capacity. the city cannot ->> if the spone reason, something happens to
11:45 am
that covenant, cannot move forward with the project, is that right? >> that is correct. >> even though it is passed through the planning commission. you are saying that we cannot condition it with a covenant. let's say eight gets approved, -- let's say it gets approved, they are still facing the purchase agreement, which has this clause in it. for some reason, if that does not pan out, they cannot move forward with the project. >> there is a board of supervisors ordinance that required the economic justice covenant be in the purchase and sale agreement. the wrappers and the desk from my office can confirm they have already entered into -- the representatives from my office can confirm the a party entered into the agreement. >> -- they have already entered into the agreement. >> there will be no building permits issued until this is
11:46 am
done? >> to echo the deputy city attorney's point, that is correct. entrance into an economic justice covenant is a required condition before closing. q >> just prior to closing, they will not have ownership of the property. >> correct. >> i have one final question. a number of speakers came up to talk about on-site affordable, but my understanding is based on the palm our decision -- palmer decision. since this is rental, that is not allowable unless there is some definite benefits given to the developer that is above and
11:47 am
beyond to what would normally be applied. i do not believe that is really on the table. maybe i could have an answer to that. >> yes, that is correct. this city has options for a satisfying that requirement. this project has satisfied. we cannot dictate which option they choose, but they have set aside the requirement. >> even if they opted -- unless they worked out some sort of a different type of arrangement, they would not be able to satisfy it, i do not believe. almost the nature of the project were changed, i think. >> they could, but because the city is granting them certain rights or providing certain types of approvals, there would have to be a separate agreement. the point is there are some
11:48 am
speakers mentioned and that they were not providing affordable housing, i want to make it clear that is not what is happening. they have the option, just like any developer does, to be used elsewhere. i think you heard from the director that that was his preference in the case because that funding would make available -- make funds available for providing other projects in other locations. >> thank you. i will comment again at the end of the hearing. commissioner miguel: i am. pleased to see this come before the commission. -- i am very pleased to see this come before the commission. i served 13 years on the central freeway octavia boulevard task
11:49 am
force. this is finally coming to fruition. as to the vision at that time. this is also, because of the market octavia plan eir, here is a project -- exactly how it was planned to do. i am pleased with the north- south corridor. i think it opens up the block. this is what we're trying to do in a larger south of market block and due out the city. the east-west works for the interior courtyards. i like the concept for hickory alley and the manner in which
11:50 am
they're going about that, exactly what should be done. using three different architects for one building is something we do not always find. the architectural expressions relate to each other and yet the center of the project has a little different feel to it, as do the two bookends. they have the presence of being so in a different iteration. that is very pleasing. i am satisfied with the explanations from moh and economic development. i understand differences and
11:51 am
repercussions there. i look forward to the development. i am glad to hear from -- i am glad to hear that it is coming soon. i look forward to seeing that. it will complete what will be, to my knowledge, the largest true in feel -- infill situation that this city is likely to see. in the middle of residential. here is a massive site that is in the middle of a residential area. if it was not for the freeway coming down, we would not even have that. is a very interesting concept, even in the middle of a major city. i am very pleased with it and with that, i would move for
11:52 am
approval with the conditions as stated. >> second. commissioner borden: i live right by the sight. i walk by it on a regular basis. i am sad about the farm going away, of course, but we all knew it was a temporary proposition. this project, not withstanding the labor issues, it is a strong project. i really like what it is doing for the corner. i love what it is doing with hickory street. it seems that someone has determined that it is their car storage. i wonder why they never did ticketed. they have been there for a long time. hickory, where it dead and there, it is not a usable space. -- dead end there, it is not be
11:53 am
usable space. this is an area that is very easy to park in. i do not own a car, but my fiancee it does. when they were doing work on our street, there were plenty of other places to park. i do not understand what the concerns are. it is not a difficult place, even with all of the people that come to the neighborhood. a number of people really do take public transit and walk and bicycle and those communities. it seems to work in that neighborhood. i also think that it is important that we look at this project in the way that it is contemplated. as a good model of how we can develop a pretty large site. that is something we often struggle with at the commission.
11:54 am
i am very disappointed with the developer that they did not do the necessary outreach with the unions. it will have been very nice if we did not have to get blindsided by that today. you have to do the work, it would have been a lot better for us all if you -- if that effort had been made in advance of the hearing. we would like to think that the developers are working to keep economic justice and making sure that people have jobs locally. the final issue about on-site affordable housing, i understand there -- the limitations of the mayor's office of housing for funding right now. that would provide housing in the neighborhood, but i prefer it on site as well. i do not necessarily know that it has to be in the same exact building. a lot of people live in buildings to gather that do not relate to each other.
11:55 am
people relate within neighborhoods, not necessarily within buildings. i do have a question about parcele o and what is being planned for that site. >> we have not selected a particular sort of population to serve. at the redevelopment agency prior to the parcel being transferred to us, the agency contemplated either family rental housing for senior housing. i think that to we are inclined to look at it as a family rental housing. we have senior housing at parcels a and c. one of the most difficult things to find in san francisco is affordable large units. i think we are inclined, at this
11:56 am
point, to family rental, but we've all reach out to stakeholders prior to making that decision. that would be 100% affordable. using low-income tax credits and tax exempt bonds and financing from the mayor's office. we will retain the land as affordable housing. commissioner borden: o is immediately adjacent. it is as close as you can get to having on-site affordable. i love the art exhibit that you walk by when you go back -- when you go by that building. it makes me more comfortable with the options that we have. if you can find a way to do on- site affordability, i guess it
11:57 am
is hard to make a decision relating to the housing trust fund. i think that is an interesting thought process. i would love to have the commissioners think about if we would want to have any language around that. it is an interesting approach and idea. it is something we should think about more in the long term. commissioner wu: i have a question for the project sponsor. isn't this project intended to be a rental project? could it be turned into condos in the future? >> yes, this will be a rental project. would you mind repeating? commissioner wu: could be sold in the future? >> we build to own.
11:58 am
we go into every development assuming that we will own it for 15 years plus. commissioner wu: i have a question for mouwd. i am wondering what steps your office takes to monitor and enforce the covenant. >> in section 2a, as a part of the covenant, the owner is required to deliver written notice. in addition, required to deliver a copy of the record related to prevailing wage. that is the first enforcement measure prior to beginning any construction. similar to any legal contract that the city enters into, it is
11:59 am
a binding contract. commissioner wu: thank you. ok. one more question. probably for planning department staff. you mentioned that improvements could result in a reduction of other fees. what fees might those be? >> the market octavia infrastructure development impact fees. commissioner wu: where would that money go? >> many different traffic calming ideas, public parks. the way that the funding goes, the cac gets an opportunity to prioritize which projects are mo